DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 1998-025
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Attorney Advisor:
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. It was dock-
eted on February 26, 1999, when the application was completed by the BCMR’s
receipt of the applicant’s medical and military records.
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated December 9, 1999, is signed by the three duly
RELIEF REQUESTED
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the
Board to correct her military record by changing her reenlistment code from RE-4
(not eligible for reenlistment) to one that will allow her to reenlist in the Coast
Guard Reserve.
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS
The applicant alleged that she was honorably discharged by reason of
physical disability on xxxxxxxx, 199x, due to a fracture in the upper right tibia of
her right knee. She alleged that xrays taken on June 2, 1997, showed that her
knee injury has healed. She argued that it was wrong for her to have been
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code when she had a medical condition that could
heal. She stated that she did not challenge the RE-4 within three years of her dis-
charge because she did not then know that her knee would ever heal.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On November 5, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant the requested relief by
changing the applicant’s reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-3P, which means
“eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor: physical disability.”
The Chief Counsel attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum that
he had received from the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) on August
12, 1999. CGPC stated that “[t]he applicant was discharged in xxxxx 199x by
reason of physical disability with a 20% rating and received severance pay.”
CGPC stated that the applicant was assigned the separation code JFL, which
means “involuntary discharge … resulting form physical disability with entitle-
ment to severance pay,” and that members with that code are supposed to be
assigned the reenlistment code RE-3P, not RE-4. The RE-3P code, CGPC stated,
would allow the applicant to reenlist “if she can document to the recruiter/MEPS
that her medical condition has changed, and she meets all other requirements for
enlistment.”
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS
On November 10, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief
Counsel’s advisory opinion and invited her to respond within 15 days. The
applicant did not respond, and the mailing was returned to the BCMR marked
“Undeliverable” by the U.S. Postal Service.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on xxxxxxxxxx, 199x, for a
period of four years under the delayed entry program.
On April 30, 199x, the applicant received a performance evaluation in
which she received 24 marks of 4 and 5 marks of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7
being best).
On July 28, 199x, the applicant was examined prior to an Initial Medical
Board. She was diagnosed with a “healed tibial fracture with 2-3 mm ‘stepoff’
split depression,” iliotibial tendonitis, and iliotibial band syndrome. The exam-
ining doctor reported that she “is never expected to be fit for full duty.” On
September 21, 199x, the doctor signed a narrative summary indicating that her
tibia had been fractured in a xxxxxxxxxxx on xxxxxx, 199x, prior to her enlist-
ment. He reported that she had suffered pain during basic training and was
placed on a “Fit for Light Duty” status several times during training. She had
sought treatment for sever pain in her knee several times during her 11 months
on active duty. On October 19, 199x, the results of the medical board, recom-
mending that her condition be further evaluated by a Central Physical
Evaluation Board (CPEB), were forwarded to the applicant’s command.
On October 31, 199x, the applicant received a performance evaluation in
which she received 14 marks of 4 and one mark of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7
being best).
On January 13, 199x, a CPEB found the applicant to be 20% impaired by
the condition of her right knee. It further found that all 20% of the impairment
was caused by aggravation that had occurred while on active duty. The CPEB
recommended that she be separated with severance pay. The recommendation
was approved on February 25, 199x. On xxxxxxx, 199x, the applicant’s command
received orders to discharge her within 30 days by reason of physical disability
with severance pay and a separation code of JFL.
On xxxxxxx, 199x, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of
“physical disability with severance pay.” She received a JFL separation code and
an RE-4 reenlistment code.
On September 29, 199x, the applicant was evaluated by a doctor for the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). On August 3, 199x, she was assigned a
10% disability rating by the DVA due to pain and discomfort in her right knee.
On July 8, 1997, her 10% disability rating was continued, although a recent
examination revealed that she had a full range of motion in her right knee and
xrays showed that “the right superior tibia is normal.” The applicant had
reported to the examining physician that her knee ached upon exertion and dur-
ing cold, damp weather and that she could not kneel for any length of time with-
out discomfort.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions,
and applicable law:
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
According to the Separation Designator Program (SPD) Handbook, mem-
bers who are assigned the JFL separation code must be assigned an RE-3P reen-
listment code. No other reenlistment code is authorized.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-
tion 1552 of title 10, United States Code. The application was timely.
The applicant was discharged due to a physical disability on xxxxx,
199x. She was properly assigned the separation code JFL. However, the Coast
Guard erred in assigning her an RE-4 reenlistment code. The SPD Handbook
requires members who receive the JFL separation code to be assigned an RE-3P
reenlistment code, which permits them to be reenlisted if they can prove to a
recruiter’s satisfaction that the disability no longer exists.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted,
and her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show that she received an RE-3P
reenlistment code rather than an RE-4.
1.
2.
3.
The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXX,
ORDER
Block 27 on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shall be corrected by replacing
Mark A. Holmstrup
USCG, is hereby granted as follows:
the RE-4 reenlistment code with an RE-3P reenlistment code.
David M. Wiegand
Pamela M. Pelcovits
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-165
However, the doctor noted that because of the atrophy, an Initial Medical Board (IMB) should be convened even though the applicant was fit for duty. The Board noted that although his diagnoses were right optic nerve atrophy, right visual field defect, and asymmetrical disk cupping, a glaucoma specialist “is unsure of whether the patient suffers from early glaucoma versus idiopathic optic nerve atrophy.” The DMB determined that the applicant was not fit for world-wide duty and referred his...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-091
The applicant was notified that the MB had recommended a finding of unfit for duty and referred his case to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) 5. To the contrary, according to the JAG, the record shows that the applicant was properly separated from the Coast Guard after a determination that the applicant had a physical disability that caused him to be unfit for duty. However, the Board finds that he should have discovered it at the time of his discharge from the Coast Guard...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2000-082
I never even met the medical officer in person, let alone received a "thorough physical examination" conducted by him as paragraph 3-F-1 [of the Physical Disability Evaluation Manual (PDES)] requires, and though signed by two medical officers, only one was involved in the actual process of producing the board. Proposed Changes to the Medical Manual Due to the efforts of the applicant, the Director of the office of Health and Safety has recommended that the Commandant include in the Medical...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-009
On July 14, 2003, the applicant was separated from the Coast Guard because of a physical disability. The Board notes the applicant’s argument that if his application is untimely, the Board should consider that the physical evaluation boards acted untimely in resolving his physical disability issue because his back problem was diagnosed in 1999 and he was not discharged until 2003. The applicant’s then-CO noted that the applicant had been in a limited duty status for over 30 months and that...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-009
On July 14, 2003, the applicant was separated from the Coast Guard because of a physical disability. The Board notes the applicant’s argument that if his application is untimely, the Board should consider that the physical evaluation boards acted untimely in resolving his physical disability issue because his back problem was diagnosed in 1999 and he was not discharged until 2003. The applicant’s then-CO noted that the applicant had been in a limited duty status for over 30 months and that...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1999-050
PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS: DSM IV Axis I Axis II Axis III Axis IV (309.28) Adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood, manifested by severe dyspho- ria, feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and vague and fleeting suicidal ideation. On July 11, 199x, the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that she be discharged “by reason of convenience of the government due to medically determined adjustment disorder (a condition, not a physical disability which interferes with performance...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-035
The applicant’s DD Form 214 dated June 20, 1995, indicates that he was temporarily retired from the Coast Guard effective June 21, 1995, placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL), and given a separation code of SFK4 and a reenlistment code of RE-2.5 On August 9, 1999, the Coast Guard’s Central Physical Evaluation Board6 determined that the applicant was not fit for continued duty in the Coast Guard. The JAG argued that the applicant’s request should be denied because...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-140
On October 28, 199x, the CPEB reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended that he receive a 20-percent disability rating for his chronic lower back pain, which it analogized to VASRD codes 5299 and 5293.3 The CPEB recommended that he be sepa- rated with severance pay.4 On November 12, 199x, the applicant was informed of the CPEB’s findings and recommendation. He also stated that at the time of the FPEB, only the applicant’s back condition made him unfit for duty and so only the back...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-147
The limited duty medical board report stated that the applicant suffered with bilateral knee pain for several years and that x-rays showed moderated degenerative joint disease of the left knee and mild degenerative joint disease of the right knee. Thus, while the DVA rated the applicant's bilateral degenerative arthritis and knee instability separately, the Coast Guard rated them as one disability. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Coast Guard to rate the applicant for only...
On March 25, 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to Article 12.B.12 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. The JAG stated that the applicant was separated for a physical disability and a RE-3G reenlistment code was entirely appropriate. Although the JAG and CGPC did not recommend that the requested relief be granted, neither objected to correcting the applicant’s record if the following corrections were requested by the applicant: a. b. c. Separation...